1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    12 Jul '13 06:18
    Bacterial Flagella: A Paradigm for Design by Dr. Scott Minnich

    YouTube

    The Instructor
  2. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    12 Jul '13 06:501 edit
    I have heard about this bit of nonsense and I have heard of the debunk to it.
    Creationist claim that Bacterial Flagella cannot evolve because each consists of many parts and they claim that it cannot function if just one of those parts is missing.
    The debunk to this is just the trivial observation that bacteria have been found with some or even most of those parts missing and yet the whole structure just functions just fine. So their claim is proven false.

    Next....
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52615
    12 Jul '13 10:48
    Originally posted by humy
    I have heard about this bit of nonsense and I have heard of the debunk to it.
    Creationist claim that Bacterial Flagella cannot evolve because each consists of many parts and they claim that it cannot function if just one of those parts is missing.
    The debunk to this is just the trivial observation that bacteria have been found with some or even most of those ...[text shortened]... nd yet the whole structure just functions just fine. So their claim is proven false.

    Next....
    Right, good luck changing the mind of self lobotomized people.
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    12 Jul '13 16:03
    Intelligent Design: Waking Up To Creation

    YouTube

    The Instructor
  5. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3081
    12 Jul '13 17:46
    Ah yes, the argument from ignorance. "I don't understand X, therefore X is wrong."
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    12 Jul '13 17:531 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Ah yes, the argument from ignorance. "I don't understand X, therefore X is wrong."
    The atheist evil-lutioninsts have a great incentive to continue to lie to support their deception that their is no creator God. Why should they tell us the truth when they do not believe in a moral authority that they must eventually answer to for what they have done while in the body?

    The Instructor
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52615
    14 Jul '13 17:09
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The atheist evil-lutioninsts have a great incentive to continue to lie to support their deception that their is no creator God. Why should they tell us the truth when they do not believe in a moral authority that they must eventually answer to for what they have done while in the body?

    The Instructor
    No, what they are saying is there is no BIBLE god. Whether or not there are gods is another story. We feel quite safe in saying there is no such a being as the man made bible god.

    You can shut off your brain till hell freezes over, we don't give a shyte but that will not cause the bible god to come forth.

    It's been 2000 years now and not a peep out of your so-called god. Time to realize it's time to move on, release your self lobotomized brain and join the human race.
  8. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3081
    14 Jul '13 17:52
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The atheist evil-lutioninsts have a great incentive to continue to lie to support their deception that their is no creator God. Why should they tell us the truth when they do not believe in a moral authority that they must eventually answer to for what they have done while in the body?

    The Instructor
    This informal fallacy, on the other hand, is known as "poisoning the well". Even if it were true that all atheists and people who accept modern biology assert that there is "no creator God" and don't believe in a "moral authority" (as it happens, both premises are false), it would hardly be relevant to evolution theory, which does not depend on any kind of moral, religious or philosophical dogma (except perhaps the scientific method).
  9. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    15 Jul '13 02:51
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    This informal fallacy, on the other hand, is known as "poisoning the well". Even if it were true that all atheists and people who accept modern biology assert that there is "no creator God" and don't believe in a "moral authority" (as it happens, both premises are false), it would hardly be relevant to evolution theory, which does not depend on any kind of moral, religious or philosophical dogma (except perhaps the scientific method).
    Can you show proof of this?

    The Instructor
  10. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    15 Jul '13 08:418 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Can you show proof of this?

    The Instructor
    which part? He made at least two assertions that no rational person would dispute because only trivial observations confirm them.

    For example, it is a trivial observation that there exists theists that accept modern biology which includes evolution. So this trivial observation is proof enough that you can both believe there is a god and believe evolution theory.
    Do you deny such theists exist?

    Another trivial observation is that evolution theory is not a theory of morality nor one that says a god either does or does not exist nor does that theory make any predictions of either nor is supported by either. So this trivial observation is proof enough that evolution doesn't depend on these other things and those other things are not even relevant.
    If you deny this, then exactly which part of evolution theory depends on those other things and how so?
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    15 Jul '13 09:09
    Originally posted by humy
    which part? He made several assertions that no rational person would dispute because only trivial observations confirm them.
    For example, it is a trivial observation that there exists people that accept modern biology (which including evolution) that are theists. So this trivial evolution is proof enough that you can both believe there is a god and believe ev ...[text shortened]... ither. So this trivial evolution is proof enough that evolution doesn't depend on these things.
    Proof that the belief in a moral authority, like God, is not relevant to evilution theory.

    Would we have had all those fake missing link claims for ape to human, if they had really believed in a moral authority, like the God of the Holy Bible, that condemned liars? Would we have had all those fake drawings of the ape changing to the caveman and the fish changing to an amphibian or mammal or reptile to a bird, if they believed in a moral authority? Why should anyone trust that there are not many more liars trying to push off their evilutionary ideas?

    The Instructor
  12. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    15 Jul '13 09:214 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Proof that the belief in a moral authority, like God, is not relevant to evilution theory.

    Would we have had all those fake missing link claims for ape to human, if they had really believed in a moral authority, like the God of the Holy Bible, that condemned liars? Would we have had all those fake drawings of the ape changing to the caveman and the fish ...[text shortened]... hat there are not many more liars trying to push off their evilutionary ideas?

    The Instructor
    Proof that the belief in a moral authority, like God, is not relevant to evolution theory.

    Yes, that is what we just said.
    Would we have had all those fake missing link claims for ape to human,

    I believe there was a couple of hoaxes by some people who just wanted publicity but there is no evidence that any of the links we accept today are fakes and no rational reason to believe they might be.

    EVEN if, extremely hypothetically, all those links are fakes, that still has nothing to do with evolution theory that doesn't specify exactly what the missing links should be nor specify exactly which links we think we have found are fakes if any are fakes. Evolution theory is not a theory of which things are fakes and which are genuine and thus cannot be rationally criticized on the bases of finding fakes.
    Why should anyone trust that there are not many more liars trying to push off their evolutionary ideas?

    EVEN if, hypothetically, those “liars” with that primary agenda existed (which they don't -other than in you delusional mind), evolution theory has nothing to do with them nor moral authority thus this would not be irrelevant.
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    15 Jul '13 09:51
    Originally posted by humy
    Proof that the belief in a moral authority, like God, is not relevant to evolution theory.

    Yes, that is what we just said.
    Would we have had all those fake missing link claims for ape to human,

    I believe there was a couple of hoaxes by some people who just wanted publicity but there is no evidence that any of the l ...[text shortened]... tion theory has nothing to do with them nor moral authority thus this would not be irrelevant.
    Your delusional mind. 😏

    The Instructor
  14. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    15 Jul '13 11:29
    Originally posted by humy
    Proof that the belief in a moral authority, like God, is not relevant to evolution theory.

    Yes, that is what we just said.
    Would we have had all those fake missing link claims for ape to human,

    I believe there was a couple of hoaxes by some people who just wanted publicity but there is no evidence that any of the l ...[text shortened]... tion theory has nothing to do with them nor moral authority thus this would not be irrelevant.
    misprint:

    "...would not be irrelevant."

    at the end of that post should have been:

    "...would not be relevant."
  15. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3081
    15 Jul '13 14:43
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Proof that the belief in a moral authority, like God, is not relevant to evilution theory.
    If you investigate the basics of evolution theory, which you have as of yet not attempted to do, then you will find that it makes no reference to morality or religion.
Back to Top